Bill Graham, director of the International Telecommunications Policy Coordination Industry, has submitted Canada’s official opposition statement to ICANN’s public comments board.
Canada, a participant in ICANN’s Government Advisory Council, “is concerned with the direction the ICANN process appears to be taking and the possible implication of that direction for the future of the organization and of the Internet itself” in its involvement with the proposed .XXX extension, Graham said.
Graham, on behalf of the Canadian government, wrote that it is essential for ICANN to adhere to its narrow mandate as the body responsible for the administration of Internet name and IP addresses, which does not include the creation of TLDs.
“In considering the policy-making aspect of ICANN’s role, it is of fundamental importance to make a distinction between broad Internet-related public policy issues such as spam, fraud, child pornography, etc., which are clearly outside ICANN’s mandate, and the more focused policy issues directly related to the technical functioning of the Internet, which are within its mandate,” Graham wrote.
After reviewing the proposed .XXX agreement between ICANN and ICM Registry, the Canadian government is concerned that many of its terms require, permit and encourage ICANN to venture far beyond its core technical functions.
Graham points out numerous instances in the proposed agreement as to how ICANN would be overstepping its technical mandate, and if .XXX is approved, ICANN “is moving in a very significant way toward taking on an ongoing policy-making and oversight role governing Internet content.
“The Government of Canada considers it inappropriate for ICANN to take on an ongoing role such as the one outlined in the revised proposed agreement with ICM, Graham said.”
Additionally, Graham wrote that “Canada remains of the view that it is not and should not be ICANN’s mandate to set policy related to content or intended to censor, control or interfere with content on the Internet by way of its contracts with TLD operators.”
The Canadian government also is concerned that with the approval of .XXX, ICANN steps into the role as the global Internet content regulator through its contracts with TLDs and risks undermining its legitimacy.
“Canada therefore recommends that ICANN should not take upon itself these inappropriate functions,” Graham wrote. “Instead, ICANN should look to alternative measures more appropriate to ICANN’s technical mandate. For example, ICANN could oblige the TLD to require registered sites to apply and maintain current control rating systems that enable filtering by end users who may wish to do so.
Other technical solutions are now becoming available that could be required to provide governments or individuals the means to prevent access to sites deemed to be illegal or offensive,” he said. “Such approaches would empower governments and individual Internet users to determine appropriate content policy as they see fit, without involving ICANN in determining such policy.”